Which is preferable: Secular Education or Theocracy?

reply to post by wildtimes

If you'll notice, I kept my answer confined to the topic of our educational system. I was hoping you would do the same, but unfortunately nothing you quoted has anything to do with the progressive agenda in schools.

reply to post by Bone75


The Common Core curriculum is part of the Progressive agenda. It is relevant.

The uber-religious are fighting against having equal education.

Here is from Common Core website:
www.corestandards.org...

MISSION STATEMENT

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

This is from their FAQ.

What are educational standards?

Educational standards help teachers ensure their students have the skills and knowledge they need to be successful by providing clear goals for student learning.

What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school.

Who leads the Common Core State Standards Initiative?

The nation’s governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the development of the Common Core State Standards and continue to lead the initiative. Teachers, parents, school administrators and experts from across the country together with state leaders provided input into the development of the standards.

Why is the Common Core State Standards Initiative important?

High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of clear expectations that are aligned to the expectations in college and careers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad.. Unlike previous state standards, which were unique to every state in the country, the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including:

Gonna leave you hangin' there. Click the link to see what that range of tools and policies is.


(P.S. This is not evil.)

reply to post by wildtimes

Hey, d, I just watched your video, and followed to its sources "Whole Brain Teaching"....
this is a fringe movement, and I agree with you that it is disturbing.

But it is NOT part of the public school curriculum or methods.

It's not fringe, and it's being used in public schools, today. The classroom in that video is a public school in Lisbon, Ohio.

In the last 10 years we have given seminars to over 6,000 educators representing over 300,000 students. Though we are centered in Southern California, we've been contacted by teachers from across the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa. Typically, our free seminars, offered three times a year at Crafton Hills College, attract over 400 instructors. Our websites receive over 2,000 hits per day. Whole Brain Teaching is one of the fastest growing, education reform movements in America. (Source)

Where did you find this? It's not what our current "secular schools" do - and appears to be just another "gimmick" that will prove short-lived.

I first came across the concept last summer from Ex_CT2's thread here on ATS: Common Core: Indoctrination Disguised as Education and we had a good discussion about it on the radio show. I certainly wish it was not an up-and-coming concept, but it appears to be. It's the next step in control that they started (intentionally or not) by diagnosing everyone under the sun with ADHD and medicating them.

reply to post by adjensen

Here's a solution to your concern about "religion creep" -- establish a system of vouchers, where every taxpayer can, for free, send their kid to any school that they want. That would end, overnight, any efforts at religious education in public schools, because the "religious nuts" would use their vouchers to send their kids to a private school that caters to religious nuts.

Here is something you may not have thought about with that proposed system.

Do you not think that within a short period of time there wouldn't be religious non religious schools and also schools for caucasian, black, Hispanic, oriental, and any other way we can separate ourselves. How about republican and democrat schools?

I think a voucher system such as the one you propose would only add to the disparity.

reply to post by wildtimes

What is the aim of progress?
How does it help humans to be better in things that really matter?
Do you advocate progress at the expense of breaking families? Progress where human interactions are decided based on the profit/loss in the outcome?

What is the rudder that would guide the direction of progress?
How you explain the simultaneous existence of State of the art defence capabilities and homeless hungry people?

Does progressive mean anti-God?

reply to post by Grimpachi

Do you not think that within a short period of time there wouldn't be religious non religious schools and also schools for caucasian, black, Hispanic, oriental, and any other way we can separate ourselves. How about republican and democrat schools?

What makes you think that's not already the case? The only way that you're going to avoid segregation like that is to forbid private schools, though I think it unlikely that anyone could start a "whites only" school and have it stand -- we do have anti-discrimination laws, you know.

The question was how to avoid religious influences in schools, and the simplest solution is to allow the religious nuts, whose views are not welcome in public schools, to go somewhere else.

reply to post by logical7

Do you advocate progress at the expense of breaking families?

No.

Progress where human interactions are decided based on the profit/loss in the outcome?

What?! No.
I'm not a 'capitalist'. Please see the links I provided already. I'm a "Progressive." Always have been. Trying to educate members on what that means (IT IS NOT COMMUNISM, TYRANNY, OR DICTATORSHIP).

hat is the rudder that would guide the direction of progress?

I explained this earlier:

The end of suffering, oppression, disenfranchisement, and the achievement of equality.

How you explain the simultaneous existence of State of the art defence capabilities and homeless hungry people?

I explain it as corruption, and the corporate stranglehold on the country. Really, log7, when you have some down time, please look over the threads I've made in the Social Issues forum, and review the ones I've made in this forum.

I am not just 'whistling in the wind' or 'patronizing'. These are serious issues, and the entire world needs to pay attention to them.

Does progressive mean anti-God?

NO.

It means: The end of suffering, oppression, disenfranchisement, and the achievement of equality.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks for clearing up my queries.

I would like to know how the "enemy" side looks at the "progessive"

I did see a debate about schooling.

Tell me don't you see that progressive schooling seems like an attack on the identity of religious people wanting to pass it down to to their kids?

adjensen
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Do you not think that within a short period of time there wouldn't be religious non religious schools and also schools for caucasian, black, Hispanic, oriental, and any other way we can separate ourselves. How about republican and democrat schools?

What makes you think that's not already the case? The only way that you're going to avoid segregation like that is to forbid private schools, though I think it unlikely that anyone could start a "whites only" school and have it stand -- we do have anti-discrimination laws, you know.

The question was how to avoid religious influences in schools, and the simplest solution is to allow the religious nuts, whose views are not welcome in public schools, to go somewhere else.

Yes but your solution would also cause a bigger problem. I know we have laws against segregation we also have tax laws. Your proposal would be differing my tax dollars to people who wish to segregate themselves even further. The cure being worse than the sickness. All they would need to do is segregate under the guise of religion. We already have segregated churches not in name but in practice that would translate in schools as well.

Look at the colleges it is already in practice what laws or regulations do you think exist that would prevent the same thing from happening with k-12 schools?

reply to post by wildtimes

Okay so you acknowledge common core as being "part" of the progressive agenda. Are you denying that removing religion from schools and inserting prescription writing psychiatrists are part of this same agenda?

reply to post by Grimpachi

The cure being worse than the sickness.

I don't think so, because it would help the people who are now being discriminated against, the poor, who cannot afford to take their kids out of a failing (or indoctrinating) school and put them where they can succeed.

If there was actually an open market for education, good schools and teaching methods would succeed, and the bad ones would either improve or close up shop. And that's incentive enough, even looking beyond the root issue of whether it would resolve WT's concerns about religious influences on public education.

reply to post by wildtimes


Dear wildtimes,

I don't suppose I need say it again, but you are a fascinating poster, providing thought provoking ideas. I think I'm missing some of your meaning here, so please allow me to ask a question or two. I'll touch on your OP in just a bit, but you've asked repeatedly what we think a "Progressive" is, and supplied your own answer.

They are for the end of suffering, oppression, disenfranchisement, and the achievement of equality.

Nobody is for suffering, everybody is against it, so it does no good as a defining term, Throw it out.

The rest of the terms aren't clear enough to get a sense of what you are talking about. Does "oppression" mean that a worker is being oppressed if he earns less than $X per hour? Or if he has to work overtime, or lose his job? Is a woman "oppressed" if there is a picture of an unclothed woman on the company bulletin board?

The same is true of "disenfranchisement," at least in the United States. Any citizen has the right to vote (and a few others vote anyway). What does that word mean to you?

"Achieving equality" is the most baffling of all. Certainly we can't claim that any of us are, in ourselves, equal to anyone else. Some are prettier, stronger, smarter, better looking, etc. It also doesn't seem to mean giving everybody the same chance in life. First, as noted, that's impossible. Second, what can "Achieving equality" mean if we're finished when everyone has a similar education? I'm afraid you might think it means equality of results, but it's hard to believe you mean that.

You'll notice I said "similar education." Without even looking at the curriculum, I suspect it's a bad idea on several grounds. First, I don't believe it is Washington's job to set the curricula for all 50 states. Why bother having school boards if the materials, courses, and operating regulations are set by the Feds?

Second, you are worried about schools indoctrinating pupils. There is a lot less of that now than if Washington sets the courses and the books to be used. Remember the videos of the children pledging allegiance to Obama, praising him, and thanking him for giving them the chance to succeed?

What do I think progressives are trying to do? I think progressives are convinced that they are better people, and wiser than non-progressives. There is some of that in your posts, and even more sprinkled through the thread. Because they are better and wiser, I believe progressives see it as their duty to "guide" as many people as they can. The most efficient way to do this is by concentrating power in Washington, and making all of the wise decisions there, for the people of the country. The decision makers in Washington must be the progressives, for they're the only ones wise enough and good enough to be trusted with those decisions. Those who are not progressives must be encouraged to leave public life, by any means necessary, to keep Washington and decision making free from obstructive influences. All for the good of society and the people in it. That is what I think they're trying to do.

It feels as though you consider "Progressives" THE ENEMY - and I don't understand why anyone wants a stagnant or "regressive" society.
We need to make PROGRESS.

Dear wildtimes, I really don't understand this argument. It seems very similar to saying that our nation was founded as a Republic, and the founders were very afraid of a Democracy. So it would seem as though Democrats are unconstitutional. Just because they've adopted the name "Progressive," doesn't mean they're for progress, at least progress towards a desirable goal.

Education toward adult achievement and life skills does NOT need to include "God." It is maths, science, history (whether or not history is "accurate" is a fine subject), social studies, civics, classical philosophy, literature, reading and writing, and whatever "tech" is deemed most important that should be taught in schools.

Here, it seems you are chasing a Utopian dream. From the school districts I've seen in this state, even the well funded, suburban, high reputation, public schools can't teach much more than 80% of it's students acceptable levels of science, math, and reading. In the ten or twelve rural and small town districts around me, they're lucky to get even one of those subjects up to 60%.

There is no reason to believe that a nation-wide "Common core" would make anything better. I don't know of any powerful person who is sincerely trying to make the US a theocracy, but I know of at least two Congressmen who want to make the country a socialist state.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by adjensen


What makes you think the rich and well to do wouldn't still pay more for their kids education in schools that cost more. This would do nothing to help the poor the inequality would still be there.

What makes you think that separating people is going to increase teachers pay bringing in more quality teachers? Private schools do much better in part to smaller classes. Your solution isn't increasing pay in fact it probably would make institutions stretch resources even further, and that comes full circle back to the problem where those with more money to spend on education for kids get better education.

The voucher idea is a bad idea all way around it would just divide people even further than they already are.

reply to post by Grimpachi

What makes you think the rich and well to do wouldn't still pay more for their kids education in schools that cost more.

Where did I say that they wouldn't do that? So what?

This would do nothing to help the poor the inequality would still be there.

Baloney.

It would give everyone choice in how their kids are educated, not just the wealthy. The only reason to be opposed to it is to support government run schools that are bad and getting worse, because they have little incentive to improve. Introduce vouchers and choice to the American education landscape and all that will change, for the better.

reply to post by adjensen


I think the only thing it would do is introduce religious mob rule to the local school systems. In areas where there are mostly catholic, likely only the catholic school would survive. Now non catholics in the area are either forced to try to relocate, or forced to put up with sending their kids to catholic school. I still am not seeing how that will fix what is wrong with the education system. Many places are having enough trouble as it is having one school up and running, how can it possibly help to add in more schools? If you can't afford one, how can you possibly afford more than one? The math does not work.

reply to post by adjensen


Seeing as you have not addressed any of my points or questions about how to stem self segregation I do not understand where your balonie statement comes from.

Do you feel segregation is a good thing and acceptably funded by tax payer moneys?


Please explain.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Please explain.

Here are the relevant facts:

1) There is concern about religious influence on public education (you know, the topic of the thread)
2) There are significant problems with many public schools in the United States
3) Poor people in those places are discriminated against because they can't afford to take their kids out of bad schools and put them in good ones

Here's my solution:

1) Grant vouchers that allow anyone to put their kid in the school that they think will serve their child best

Now, here's an opinion:

1) You think that people might abuse the system and become segregated

Now, why are you ignoring the facts, and refuting the solution with an opinion for which you have no evidence, because it is purely speculative?

That's what I mean when I say that your claim that vouchers would hurt the poor is baloney. It would give them a choice in an open market and would result in better education as the good schools excelled and the bad ones either emulated the good ones, or went under.

reply to post by TKDRL

I think the only thing it would do is introduce religious mob rule to the local school systems. In areas where there are mostly catholic, likely only the catholic school would survive.

If the Catholic school is the best school overall, why wouldn't non-Catholics want to send their kids there? And if the public school is better than the Catholic school, only hardcore Catholics (and there aren't that many of them any more) would send their kids to the Catholic school.

This is about using the open market to encourage a better education system. Right now you've got a subsidized system that is failing in many areas.

adjensen
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Please explain.

Here are the relevant facts:

1) There is concern about religious influence on public education (you know, the topic of the thread)
2) There are significant problems with many public schools in the United States
3) Poor people in those places are discriminated against because they can't afford to take their kids out of bad schools and put them in good ones

Here's my solution:

1) Grant vouchers that allow anyone to put their kid in the school that they think will serve their child best

Now, here's an opinion:

1) You think that people might abuse the system and become segregated

Now, why are you ignoring the facts, and refuting the solution with an opinion for which you have no evidence, because it is purely speculative?

That's what I mean when I say that your claim that vouchers would hurt the poor is baloney. It would give them a choice in an open market and would result in better education as the good schools excelled and the bad ones either emulated the good ones, or went under.

Why have you ignored this question?

Look at the colleges it is already in practice what laws or regulations do you think exist that would prevent the same thing from happening with k-12 schools?

I believe you are the one ignoring the facts here.

most flagship universities in the South remain more than 80 percent white, that 60 percent of black freshmen attend historically black colleges or junior colleges and that success rates for minorities, measured in graduation rates and enrollment in graduate schools, are stagnant or falling in all 12 states.link

Your solution is vouchers while ignoring all the side affects of those vouchers. You have done nothing to adress how vouchers will increase pay for or add teachers to fill positions. The only thing a voucher system will do is facilitate those who wish to segregate themselves from portions of society.

Maybe you would address that with more regulation( I am personally against more regulation) so what do you propose to make sure that k-12 wouldn't segregate like the college system has?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Since when do they have vouchers for colleges? How are colleges related to this topic? I ignored the question because I fail to see its relevance.